Appeal 2006-2592
Application 10/035,535
In re Woodruff, supra. We note that no evidence of unexpected results has
been submitted by Appellants. Furthermore, as stated by the Examiner and
not disputed by Appellants, it was known in the art that the higher the partial
pressure of a solute in a gas, the higher the concentration, and the higher the
concentration, the more the solute diffuses into a body (Answer 3-4, citing
Kingery; see factual finding (4) listed above). We agree with the
Examiner’s reasoned analysis as stated in the Answer (3-4 and 7-11).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we affirm
the rejection of the claims on appeal under § 103(a) over Ishikawa in view of
Kingery.
OTHER ISSUES
In the event of further or continuing prosecution of the claimed
subject matter, the Examiner and Appellants should review the claimed
phrase “substantially greater than 1.013x102 kPa” to determine if the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs, have been
fulfilled. Specifically, under the “written description” requirement of the
first paragraph, the basis in the original Specification or claims for this
phrase should be cited by Appellants. Under the “definiteness” requirement
of the second paragraph, Appellants and the Examiner should determine
what the scope of “substantially” encompasses since it appears that this term
is not defined in the original Specification. For example, what is the lower
limit of the claimed pressure range? We note that particular embodiments
appearing in the Specification will not be read into the claims when the
claim language is broader than such embodiments.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013